DOCSLIB.ORG

Boston Borough Council Council Size Submission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Boston Borough Council Council Size Submission Boston Borough Council Council Size Submission Local Government Boundary Commission for England Submitted October 2011 0 Executive Summary We have based this submission on the principle of creating a Council Size which functions effectively. We have considered the factors that influence council size, as set out by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE): • The decision making process • Quasi-judicial processes – e.g. planning and licensing – what is the workload and how is it managed • The scrutiny process – what is scrutinised and how is the total scrutiny workload managed • The representative role of the elected member Since the last review in October 1996 the Council moved to a Leader/Cabinet model thus reducing the level of involvement necessary for decision making and leading to a suggestion that we could once again sustain a reduction in the number of councillors. We have also reviewed the supporting committee structures in order to strengthen the scrutiny role. Although official statistics suggest that our population is approximately 61,000 we believe that this figure could be at least 10,000 higher. With this in mind we believe that our current electorate of 47,293 which is an average ration of 1:1478 per councillor could be in the region of 2,500 higher. We have taken into consideration the criteria used to determine the number of councillors and in particular: • Growth since the last boundary review and forecast of future electorate o We are not anticipating a significant rise in the electorate based on the information from the past five years and the fact that there are no new or large scale developments identified in the local plan. However there has also been a need identified for approximately 250 new homes per year which could potentially increase the electorate by around 2,500. We also believe that the statistics for our population are higher than the official figures which could also be reflected in our electorate figures. We need to work with members, particularly those in town wards to address the issue of low registration. • Council structure and attendance at committee meetings o In the year 2009/10 overall attendance at meetings, including substitutions, was 85% o In the year 2010/11 overall attendance at meetings, including substitutions was 76% o In the year 2009/10 attendance of the Planning Committee, with substitutes, was 91% and 91.55% of decisions were made by officers with delegated powers. o In the year 2010/11 attendance of the Planning Committee, with substitutes, was 85% and 93.5% of decisions were made by officers with delegated powers. o In the year 2009/10 attendance at Licensing/regulatory and appeals committees was 58% (substitutes are not allowed on this committee) and 99.14% of decisions were made by officers with delegated powers. o In the year 2010/11 attendance at Licensing/regulatory and appeals committees was 53% (substitutes are not allowed on this committee) and 99.87% of decisions were made by officers with delegated powers. We recognise that the decline in attendance for 2010/11 could be attributed to the fact that it was a pre-election year and that some members may have decided to stand down. We also recognise, and more importantly, are not suggesting that a lack of attendance automatically equates to a lack of representation for the electorate. • Demands from individuals and communities on ward member time o With many of our wards situated in rural locations there is an additional demand on the time of the councillors representing those wards. Additionally, some of our wards have more than one member which in itself can increase the workload as there is no designated ‘patch’. For those members serving on wards within the town centre Parish Councils do not exist and so they cannot spread the workload. 1 Recommendations Considering all of the evidence summarised above we recommend that the current Council Size be reduced by 2 councillors to 30. The rationale for 30 is that we can allow 8 for Cabinet, 2 for Mayoralty and 20 to ensure that our regulatory, scrutiny and other committees have adequate representation and can continue to function effectively. Although we cannot prescribe the number to sit on Cabinet, this would be up to individual Leaders, we have taken 8 as an average. Our intention is then to use the following model to structure our regulatory committees: Licensing 13 a reduction from 15 Planning 11 a reduction from 13 Scrutiny 11 no change Scrutiny 11 no change Audit 9 no change As it is good practice, we will continue to have an odd number on committees to try and avoid equality of votes. If attendance on committees continues to decline we believe that they will still be sustainable with 30 members, but anything less may impact decision making. In addition to this a reduction of 2 members will increase the ratio of electorate to councillor by an average of 98, and it is our view that to reduce the number of members any further will detrimentally affect representation. 2 Introduction This submission forms Boston Borough Council’s response to the LGBCE for an Electoral Review. Boston Borough Council has 32 Councillors who represent the people of its 18 wards. Following the May 2011 Local Government Election, the Council comprised: 18 Conservatives, 5 Independents, 4 Boston District Independents, 3 Labour and 2 English Democrats. All members are elected for a four year term. In May 2011, following the local elections, 19 new councillors were elected. The Council moved to a Leader/Cabinet model (recently confirmed as the ‘strong leader model) in 2000 and has recently reviewed the supporting Committee structures to strengthen the scrutiny role. Background The initial stage of an Electoral Review is to determine a preferred Council Size. This is the number of Councillors required to deliver effective and convenient local government (choosing the appropriate number of members to allow the council and individual councillors to perform most effectively). This will subsequently determine the average (optimum) number of Electors per councillor to be achieved across all wards of the authority. This number is reached by dividing the electorate by the number of Councillors on the authority. Guidance from the LGBCE states that “All proposals on Council size, whether for changing the existing size or not, should be justified and evidence must be provided in support of the proposal.” Guidance on Calculating Council Size Guidance issued by the LGBCE suggests that the following issues should be considered when developing a proposal for Council Size: Managing the business of the Council The model of local governance used by the local authority impacts on the workload of councillors and the working practices of the council, and therefore will have an effect on the number of councillors needed by the Council. The functions of Scrutiny, regulatory committees, Outside Bodies and Others – The structure and responsibilities of these functions impact on the workload of councillors. Representational Role: Representing Electors to the Council and the Council in the Community – The role and responsibilities of councillors, especially if there have been any significant changes since the introduction of the Local Government Act 2000 (LGA) and the Local Government Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (LGPIH 2007). Each of these issues is considered in the following pages of this Submission, which presents the case for the recommended Council size for Boston Borough Council. Managing the Business of the Council The Local Government Act 2000 fundamentally altered the political management of local authorities by separating executive from non executive functions. Previously Boston Borough Council had a range of committees each with its own remit and responsibility for overseeing a function of the Council. Each committee was politically proportionate. The LGA 2000 is significant as, whilst Full Council now sets the broad Policy and Budgetary framework, executive decision-making is the responsibility of the Cabinet. There is no requirement for the Executive to be politically proportionate and it is currently comprised solely of the members of the controlling group. The role of the executive is to ‘propose the policy framework and implement policies within the agreed framework’. The role of non-executive councillors is to represent their constituents, share in the policy and budget decisions of the full Council, suggest policy improvements, and scrutinise the Executive’s policy proposals and their implementation.’ 3 Electoral Reviews The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is the body responsible for electoral arrangements in England. The Commission keeps under review the levels of electoral representation to ensure that equality of representation is maintained in light of population changes within areas. The Commission has a programme of periodic electoral reviews, the last Electoral Review of Boston was carried out in October 1996; at this point the Council was served by 34 councillors across 17 wards. During the review the Electoral Commission found that the existing electoral arrangements provided unequal representation of electors in Boston because: • In 11 of the 17 wards, the number of electors represented by each council varied by more than 10% from the average for the borough • In two of the wards, Swineshead and Holland Fen, the number of electors represented by each councillor varied by more than 40 per cent from the average • By 2001 the number of electors per councillor was thought likely to vary by over 10% from the average in 12 of the wards The final recommendations following the review were that • Boston Borough Council should be served by 32 councillors, as at present • There should be 18 wards, as at present • The ward boundaries of 14 of the existing wards should be modified, while three wards should retain their existing boundaries • Elections should continue to take place every four years When undertaking a review the Commission has regard to a statutory criteria based around three broad principles.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lincolnshire Eptons Swaby, Brothertoft, Bilsby, Spilsby, Huttoft
    William Epton = Mary ........? Lincolnshire Eptons (L1/43) (LDS Film 508053) (L2/43) William Epton = Elizabeth ........? bap.24 Jul 1709 Swaby b.ca 1710 Swaby, Brothertoft, Bilsby, Spilsby, Huttoft & Boston bur.1 Apr 1752 Swaby age 45? m.1735 (K1/43) (K2/43) Richard Epton Sarah Epton = Thomas Lowe Elizabeth Epton Joseph Epton = Ann Hewson Edward Epton bap.3 May 1741 Swaby bap.29 Apr 1744 Swaby (J3/43) bap.14 Feb 1745 Swaby bap.11 Sep 1747 Swaby Lincs b.11 Jun 1749 Strubby Lincs bap.12 Feb 1749 Swaby d.1741 Swaby Lincs m.26 Aug 1771 Swaby d.20.Jan 1784 Swaby d.10 Apr 1818 Cumberworth m.20 Sep 1770 Bilsby Lincs bur.3 Feb1752 Swaby Sheet 43 (J1/43) (Boyds) (J2/43) (J4/43) (J5/43) (J6/43) (J7/43) Last updated 7th September 2010 Richard Epton = Mary Sims John Epton Rebecca Epton = John Farrow Elizabeth Epton Ann Epton Joseph Epton = Frances Thompson Ann Epton = George Ham b.29 Dec 1770 Strubby Lincs b.1774 Hogsthorpe b.24 Jan 1773 Theddlethorpe b.4 Oct 1774 Theddlethorpe b.5 Jul 1774 Willoughby b.3 Oct 1777 Theddlethorpe b.8 Feb1779 Theddlethorpe b.17 Feb 1780 Theddlethorpe b.1 Jul 1783 Wormsley Yorks b.31 Jan 1783 Anderby b.1770 Oxford We are indebted to Anne Spooner, Jennie Dixon, Bob Epton, d.27 Nov 1811 Bilsby Lincs (1794 Lincs Poor Law Index Pt1 p.36) d.28 May 1774 m.31 Mar 1796 Walton le Marsh d.10 Jun 1840 Willoughby d.6 Feb 1866 Hagworthingham d.22 Mar 1779 Theddlethorpe m.16 May 1808 d.15 Aug 1822 Bilsby (H9/43) m.15 Sep 1808 Sydney NSW d.1830 NSW Australia m.17 May 1793 Hogsthorpe (H1/43) d.1863 Jun qtr Spilsby RD 7a/363 (H2/43) (H3/43) d.6 Oct 1839 Willoughby Lincs (H5/43) (H6/43) (H7/43) d.15 May 1859 Bilsby (H8/43) d.7 Apr 1864 Jerrys Plains NSW Aus.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Minimum Number of the Electorate Required to Petition for a Referendum for an Elected Mayor
    NOTICE OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF THE ELECTORATE REQUIRED TO PETITION FOR A REFERENDUM FOR AN ELECTED MAYOR Under the Local Government Act 2000 and under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, one of the things we have to do by law is let people know about their right to ask for a referendum if they want an elected mayor to manage their council. We also have to tell you the numbers needed for a valid petition. If 5% of the number of people on the local electoral register submit a petition asking for a referendum for an elected mayor, then the local council must hold a referendum in their area. We have listed the numbers of people the 5% equates to in each council district in Lincolnshire, as well as the total for Lincolnshire County Council – these figures apply from 15 February 2021. District 5% of electoral register needed Boston Borough 2,412 East Lindsey 5,511 City of Lincoln 3,132 North Kesteven 4,592 South Holland 3,547 South Kesteven 5,444 West Lindsey 3,704 Lincolnshire 28,342 These figures will be used to check the validity of any petition received between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2022 or any earlier date required by Government Regulation. Every year we publish the 5% figures and remind you of your right to tell us in a petition that you would like a referendum. The petition must be signed by the correct number of people (using the 5% figures for your district listed above) and delivered to a council’s ‘principal office’.
    [Show full text]
  • Lincolnshire Local Plan Tool
    Lincolnshire Local Plan Tool Upper Tier Tool Report September 2015 Lincolnshire Local Plan Tool Upper Tier Tool Report Document Control Sheet Project Title Lincolnshire Local Plan Tool Report Title Upper Tier Tool Report Revision 3.0 Status Final Control Date 13/10/2015 Record of Issue Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date 1.0 Draft JC 02/09/15 PR 02/09/15 GB 02/09/15 2.0 Final PR 21/09/15 PR 21/09/15 GB 21/09/15 3.0 Final PR 15/10/15 PR 15/10/15 PR 15/10/15 Distribution Organisation Contact Copies Lincolnshire County Council Andy Gutherson Electronic Lincolnshire County Council Lee Rowley Electronic This Report is presented to Lincolnshire County Council in respect of Lincolnshire Local Plan Tool and may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this Report. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Report, Mouchel Limited working as Lincolnshire County Council Highways Alliance is obliged to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence in the performance of the services required by Lincolnshire Local Plan Tool and Mouchel Limited shall not be liable except to the extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence, and this report shall be read and construed accordingly. This Lincolnshire County Council Highways Alliance Report has been prepared by Mouchel Limited. No individual is personally liable in connection with the preparation of this Report. By receiving this Report and acting on it, the client or any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract, tort, for breach of statutory duty or otherwise.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Lincolnshire
    CENTRAL LINCOLNSHIRE STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT JANUARY 2018 Note: This version of the Central Lincolnshire Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) was adopted by the Central Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee on 22nd January 2018. It replaces the previous SCI adopted in June 2016. This 2018 version is almost identical to the 2016 version but adds a contents page and a section relating to neighbourhood plans in accordance with the requirements of the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017. The remainder of the document is unchanged. CONTENTS 1. Introduction………………………………………………….. 1 2. Our Commitment to Meaningful Consultation…………… 1 3. Local Plans………………………………………………….. 2 4. Supplementary Planning Documents……………………… 4 5. Planning Applications………………………………………. 5 6. Neighbourhood Planning……………………………………. 7 Glossary………………………..…………………………………….. 17 Contact Details……………………...……………………………….. 18 CENTRAL LINCOLNSHIRE STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 1. Introduction This Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) outlines how the Central Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee expects to involve and consult the public and stakeholders when preparing planning policy documents, namely local plans (page 2) and supplementary planning documents (page 4). It also outlines how and when the public can have their say on planning applications (page 5) and provides brief What is the Central Lincolnshire Joint commentary on neighbourhood planning (page Strategic Planning Committee? 8). The Central Lincolnshire Joint Strategic The commitments made in this SCI are legally Planning Committee (CLJSPC) is binding on the CLJPC and its constituent district responsible for the strategic planning authorities. The County Council also has a duty to policy functions of the four constituent prepare and maintain its own separate SCI, which authorities of the Central Lincolnshire will mostly cover planning consultations related to area, namely the City of Lincoln Council, Minerals and Waste proposals and policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Hoarding Guidance for Frontline Staff
    Contents Guidance for Frontline Staff 1 Overview of the Hoarding Pathway 2 Notification Process / Flowchart 3 – 5 Hoarding Characteristic Insights 6 – 9 Clutter Image Rating Scales 10 - 16 Assessment Tool Guidelines 17 Example Questions & Engagement Tips 19 Further Advice / Self Help / Support 20 - 22 Useful Contact Details Overview of the Hoarding Pathway This document is designed to help any frontline member of staff who would like further guidance on hoarding identified within a person's home, who you may be working with. The triangle below gives you an idea of the support / signposting that can be sourced according to the levels of clutter within the property. There is also a notification process on the next page, designed to help you to help us in identifying people who require further support. We always encourage multi-agency working and where possible, the hoarding advocate would like to be made aware of any properties cluttered at a rating 4+. Please email [email protected] uk.org if you have any further questions or require further advice. Page | 1 Notification Process Page | 2 Hoarding Insight Characteristics Use this guide as a baseline to describe the person's attitude towards their hoarding. The Frontline member of staff will be required to provide additional information in the notification (if it is available at this time) to enable a tailored approach that is relevant to the person in question. GOOD OR FAIR INSIGHT The person recognises that hoarding-related beliefs and behaviours (relating to difficulty discarding items, clutter or excessive acquisition) are problematic. The customer recognises these behaviours in themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • Boston-Profile-FINAL.Pdf
    Profile 02/12/2014 BOSTON BIG LOCAL COMMUNITY PROFILE Contents Page 3 What is Big Local - Background Page 4 Our Big Local Partnership Page 5 Creating the Big Local Plan, What it ’ s not about Page 6 What can you do, Contacts Pages 7 - 8 Introduction Page 9 Boston Big Local Area Pages 10 - 11 History Pages 11 - 12 Overview Pages 13 - 15 Population Pages 16 - 17 Employment Pages 18 - 22 Housing Pages 22 - 25 Benefit changes - impact on Boston Pages 26 - 28 Transport Pages 29 - 30 Deprivation Pages 31 - 32 Health Pages 33 - 34 Education Pages 35 - 37 Crime Page 38 Placecheck Group’ s feedback Pages 39 - 55 Boston Big Local Consultation Pages 56 - 60 Annex A Street list and postcodes of Big Local area Page 62 Bibliography Page 63 Thanks 2 02/12/2014 BOSTON BIG LOCAL COMMUNITY PROFILE What is Big Local? Background Big Local is an exciting opportunity for residents in 150 areas around England to use at least £1million to make a lasting positive difference to their communities. Central Boston has been selected as one of these areas and we are in the early stages of applying for the first instalment from the £1 million to help the residents from within the Boston Big Local area as defined on the map. Local Trust is the national organisation running Big Local. Big Local funding comes from a £200m plus investment from the Big Lottery Fund. Local Trust’s mission is to enable people to make their communities better places to live. They do this by helping them develop and use their skills and confidence to identify what matters most to them, and to take action to change things for the better, now and in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • West Lindsey News and County News
    County News logo Final artwork PMS 583 23C 0M 100Y 17K PMS 444 15C 0M 15Y 42K PMS 377 40C 0M 100Y 38K PMS 583 contents23C 0M 100Y 17K summer 2014 3 News in brief 7 Four pages of stories from across Lincolnshire 7 Castle countdown! New-look Lincoln Castle will give tourism a boost Leader ’s welcome... 8 Special feature: Thanks for everything! One hundred years ago this August, Britain was Meet the winners of our plunged into the most terrible conflict the world 2014 Good Citizens Awards 8 had ever seen. The dramatic consequences of the First World War Meeting our children s needs were felt not only on the front line, but also on the home 10 front, including here in Lincolnshire. Improved services for children In a special feature in this County News, we tell the with additional needs tragic story of Lincoln mother Amy Beechey, who lost five of her eight sons in the conflict – the highest toll on any single British family. 11 Tips for better recycling We also highlight a superb exhibition at the Museum How to avoid contaminating recycling by mistake of Lincolnshire Life called 1914, A Call to Arms for Lincolnshire – the first of a series we’re planning over Special feature: Lest we forget the next four years. 16 16 On a lighter note, the summer months offer a County events 100 years after the fabulous number of events – large and small, weird and outbreak of WW1 wonderful – in every corner of the county. With that in mind, we’ve included a special three- page Out and About section at the back of the magazine, 19 Giving something back with something to suit every taste.
    [Show full text]
  • Destination Management Plan
    DESTINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN Background The Lincolnshire Wolds is a rolling landscape and was designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in 1973 and is the highest area of land in Eastern England between Yorkshire and Kent and covers some 560 kilometres. The Lincolnshire Wolds AONB cuts across the council boundaries of East Lindsey District Council, West Lindsey District Council, North and North East Lincolnshire Councils. The Lincolnshire Wolds AONB is surrounded by a number of distinctive historic market towns and includes: Alford, Brigg, Caistor, Horncastle, Louth, Market Rasen and Spilsby. The combination of the Lincolnshire Wolds AONB and market towns best describes the visitor destination i.e., the natural character area of the Lincolnshire Wolds and market towns. The visitor offer in the Lincolnshire Wolds and Market Towns is diverse from outdoor pursuits through to heritage and cultural interests. Lincolnshire is a rich agricultural county and home to many talented food producers who grow and make fantastic foods. The Lincolnshire Wolds is at the heart of the county so visitors are never far away from sampling great food and drink. This is further complemented by the wide range of visitor attractions and activities for visitors to experience. The visitor economy in East Lindsey is estimated to be worth £584 million and the area welcomed over 4.5 million visitors in 2015. It is further estimated that approximately a fifth of this economic activity is attributed to the rural visitor economy, generating over £100 million for the rural visitor economy but this does not take into account tourism related economic activity in West Lindsey, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire so the true value of sector will far exceed this figure.
    [Show full text]
  • Boston Borough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
    Water Boston Borough Council October 2010 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Water Boston Borough Council October 2010 Prepared by: ................................ Checked by: .............................. Roy Lobley Richard Ramsden Associate Director Senior Engineer Approved by: ........................... Andy Yarde Regional Director Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Rev No Comments Checked by Approved Date by 1 Final to client RR AY April 2011 5th Floor, 2 City Walk, Leeds, LS11 9AR Telephone: 0113 391 6800 Website: http://www.aecom.com Job No 60034187 Reference RE01 Date Created October 2010 This document is confidential and the copyright of AECOM Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. f:\projects\50016i boston sfra (revision)\reports\boston sfra final march11.docx Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 2 Development Planning...................................................................................................................................................... 9 East Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • South Kesteven District Council
    South Kesteven District Council Electoral Review Council size submission January 2013 Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. Overview of submission 4 3. Overview of South Kesteven 5 Profile of the district of South Kesteven 5 Ward Scheme 7 4. Governance arrangements 8 Overview 8 Decision-making 8 Regulatory functions 11 Other committees 13 Overview and scrutiny 16 Case Study 1 – Localisation of Council Tax Support 20 Case Study 2 – Strategic Car Parking Review 22 Case Study 3 – Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places 24 Partnership working and working with other organisations 25 5. Demands on time 26 Councillors’ time commitment 26 Councillor role descriptions 26 Training 26 Business of the council 26 Member involvement in external bodies 26 Retention of members 27 Successful transaction of Council business 27 Ward budget/allocations 27 6. Representational role of Councillors 28 7. Future 31 The Council’s Vision and Priorities 31 Growth 33 Localism and policy development 34 Service delivery 35 Finance 38 8. Conclusion 40 9. Appendices Appendix 1 – Member involvement in committees and outside bodies 41 Appendix 2 – Delegation Scheme 42 Appendix 3 – Councillor role profiles 85 Appendix 4 – Council business – 1 August 2010 to 31 July 2012 102 Appendix 5 – Councillor Activity Questionnaire – overview of 110 responses Appendix 6 – Community Drop in and Engagement Events 2012 115 Appendix 7 – growth projections 117 2 | Page 1. Introduction 1.1 This paper sets out the Council’s formal response to a request form the Local government boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) to put forward a submission for council size. The technical guidance on electoral reviews states that: “Decisions on council size are the starting point in any electoral review, since that number determines the optimum councillor to elector ratio for the purposes of achieving electoral equality”.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 1 Boygrift to Well High Lane
    Filename: K:\projects\UA008366-Viking Link\E-OurDrawings\Planning\Viking MXDs\FAO Jess Murray\Cable\DBA\UA008366-Cable DBA-Fig 2-Heritage-Assets.mxd CONSULTANT: ARCADIS PRODUCED: A.HANKINS CHECKED: J.MURRAY APPROVED: J.GIDMAN © ON C 0 r o w n c o p y r i g h t a n d d a t a b a s e r i g h t s 2 0 1 6 . O r 5 d 0 n 0 a n c e S u r v e y 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 6 7 3 1 , 0 0 S 0 e M c e t t i r o e s n 1 E n d 1 7 4 4 0 8 2 6 9 4 1 2 4 0 7 2 5 5 L B 3 2 4 1 9 This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client. It may not be used, modified, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM or as required by law. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that uses or relies on this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. Do not scale this document. All measurements must be obtained from the stated dimensions. 4 S N R L H F F F N L D 1 D R E H I I O E 4 i 2 1 G G I E a s E o o e G / G E V V t T 0 U U t e f s n E .
    [Show full text]
  • Download Report (PDF)
    Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm Construction Community Fund Final Report 2020 1 “The Trustees and staff at the funding that wouldn’t be available Lincolnshire Community to them via any other means or Foundation (LCF) greatly channels. appreciate the opportunity to The funds have made, and will deliver the Triton Knoll Offshore continue to make, a tremendous Wind Farm Construction difference to some of the Community Fund. Most County’s most isolated importantly, we relish the chance communities.” to further support local not-for- profit groups, operating for the benefit of people living in - Sue Fortune, CEO, Lincolnshire Lincolnshire, access grant Community Foundation 2 The Aims & Objectives The objective of the Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm Construction Community Fund is to support projects that improve the lives of people living in communities located within 3km of the landfall location near Anderby Creek, 5km of the onshore substation location near Bicker Fen and 1km of the onshore cable route: The total fund was worth £500,000 and the aim was to distribute £250,000.00 per year, over the course of two years (2018-2020). 3 About Lincolnshire Community Foundation Lincolnshire Community Foundation has been operating for 18 years and has vast experience of bringing together people from the local community, training them and facilitating a robust, fair decision-making process to ensure grant funds go to those groups that make a big difference to local residents, whether it be a pre-school, a bowls club, one-off community event or improving local amenities. All applicants have been offered support and guidance throughout the application process and kept informed about next steps.
    [Show full text]